Pages

22 April 2015

I have been sent a flyer for a project which I wanted to share the details of. I really value community projects of this kind.

Art House - finding refuge in art; a one-off, 10 week art project in Exeter on Thursday mornings during May, June and July 2015. Funded by Arts Council, England, Exeter City Council's Art Project funding, Fawcett Devon, SEEDS and the Elmgrant Trust.

Dates
7, 14 and 21 May
4, 11, 18 and 25 June
2, 9, 16 JulyThe Artists
Art House is led by artist Nicci Wonnacott for weeks 1-10 with Josh Gaunt for weeks 5-10. This art project is coordinated by Catherine Cartwright who was 'artist in residence' at Exeter's women's refuge.Who can come?
This art project is for women who have experienced domestic abuse at some point in their lives. Nicci, Catherine and Josh are experienced artist practitioners who have worked with vulnerable adults and understand how to offer a creative, friendly and inspiring workshop.

How much does it cost?
There is no charge because of the funding from the above organisations. There is a small budget to help with travel costs if this is a barrier to you coming. Please ask Catherine.

Do I need to book my place?
We would like to keep the group size to around 10 so there are limited spaces. Please let us know you are coming by emailing catherine@catherinecartwright.co.uk. We ask that you commit to as many of the sessions as possible and let us know if you can't come.

What will we be doing?
Over the 10 weeks we will get creative in drawing, painting, collage, sculpture and animation. Some of our inspirations will be;

Where?
The art project will take place in Exeter, close to St David's Station. When you book your place, Catherine will send directions and ensure you're happy about where to find us. Any nerves or queries...please don't hesitate to contact Catherine on the email address above. There are no wrong questions!

(Please note that I am not part of this project so please direct any questions to Catherine rather than via this blog. She will be able to help, thank you)

20 April 2015

A couple of weeks ago I was asked a question by a peer which he posed as follows:

I’d like to ask you about what you see
as the best way to regulate counselling, there’s two reasons for this
question. The first is that your experience as both a complainant
and a practising counsellor gives you a valuable first-hand view of the issues
and I’d like to find out more about what you’ve learnt from that.

The second reason for starting this
conversation like this is that I’d like to see what happens if I apply the
style of open questioning and reflecting that I’ve learnt in my counselling training
to a conceptual rather than emotion issue (in this case exploring the concepts
around regulation of counselling). Debates in academic philosophy
tend to be adversarial in nature, which works well is all the parties concerned
are adept philosophers but it ends up excluding everyone else. I’m
curious to see what academic philosophy could learn from counselling practice.

The question is: if you had the power to
pass a law to regulate counselling and psychotherapy what would it say?

I was very pleased to have this opportunity to reflect upon where I was in terms of my thoughts on regulation and decided to throw together a compilation of my thoughts as they stand right now (for now….the thinking ever evolves…). These were by and large as follows:

Thank you for your message and for
giving me the opportunity to consolidate my thoughts on regulation.

This is such a complex issue for me and
I would like to share some of that complexity. My thoughts in answering your
questions are:

Emotions

First of all, this is an emotional issue
for me, since being a complainant was an emotional ordeal. It affected my
career, my family life and relationships. I lost the respect of
peers at Palace Gate who decided to believe the opposition's narrative (I
believe because it was easier for them to believe that, as they had dependency
on Palace Gate for income, prestige, familiarity aka "easy life" etc
etc). However, it is the emotional impact on me that has driven me to explore
the possibilities of regulation and really get stuck into the debate.

I do not believe that it is ever
possible to remove emotions from arguments. I am very interested in the
research into the purpose of emotions by Antonio Damasio, particularly the role
of emotions in decision making.

My "natural"
response

This is how I refer to my thoughts
pre-Palace Gate. It seemed very obvious that there is a need for regulation
because there are baddies out there. Abuse and exploitation exists and I
believe that this profession is no exception. In fact. I think that all caring
professions attract members of the Karpman Drama Triangle; Rescuers. Rescuers can
also be Persecutors and Victims. None of these are helpful to clients and keep
them stuck in their unhelpful dynamics, or worse. It just seemed a no-brainer
that there should be a level of protection. Drama Triangle types have no
business in therapy. This is part of the shadow. This lack of self-awareness
coupled with the imbalance of power can be highly damaging. People can pay
hundreds of pounds plus to feel worse. I wish we could measure ego fragility as
part of the fitness to practice.

Being aware of my own
agenda - looking at what the public want

As part of the continual scrutiny of my
motives in how I behave/what I believe in I asked the public about their opinion of regulation in the profession. I was genuinely open to people not
giving a monkeys or being opposed to it. Maybe it was the way I posed the
question but there was an overwhelming agreement that regulation should be in
place. Moreover, most people thought that we were already regulated and many
expressed shock that we aren't. This was very helpful to me and gave me extra
impetus. These are the service users and their needs and opinions are
incredibly important to me. More so, in fact, than self-serving professionals
who clearly do have an agenda (myself included).

The opposition

I know the arguments against regulation.
Quite frankly I think that some of those arguments are silly. I struggle with
Brian Thorne's and Andrew Samuels' stances. Thorne says that
regulation would be like getting a Sergeant Major to choreograph a ballet. I
find that argument silly. The sort of gubbins that politicians come out with. I
haven't heard any real reasons why we shouldn't proceed with some kind of
regulation. I hear name calling. People calling the BACP "empire
builders". Judgmental, assumptive terms (not that I am immune from
throwing some out myself, clearly). That we would have to practice under a code
of fear. I believe that fear is behind the opposition to regulation. Which leads
me onto…

"Freedom is what
you do with what's been done to you"

Boundaries are freeing. We can work
creatively within a code of ethics. I find this empowering. I like to know
where the edge of the cliff is lest I fall off it. I want to see the view but
if the knowledge and thought of somebody before me has led to there being a
clear path that I can safely follow then I can skip along that path instead of
fearfully crawling along. Also, I'm less likely to recklessly run around with
gay abandon, so I'm probably not going to slip off the cliff and break my neck.
Now, if people want to take that risk then fine, but it is not on to tell
somebody you'll lead them safely past the cliff edge, then decide to take them
cartwheeling past, and to do so with no safety mechanisms in place. It's other
people's lives we are dealing with.

I'm not even sure how useful that
analogy is. I will ponder on it further. I suppose that one could argue that an
individual may be okay with being dragged to the cliff edge by a therapist. I
would argue the next point though.

Therapists as gurus,
miracle workers and high-priests/esses

I have had a number of clients tell me
that I have saved their life."You have made
me a new person". "Without you I'd be dead". Strong words indeed
and such a privilege to hear. But I feel a certain level of discomfort around
that and I do reiterate to my clients that they do the work, I simply
facilitate and provide a safe, professional, boundaried environment. I do
believe that these clients could have had the same result with
other therapists although am aware that the chemistry between therapist
and client is an important factor (and largely outside of my control!). My
point is that I think that the "power" we provide is actually quite
simple. "Good enough" therapy can be life changing. I'd like to think
that my intelligent insights and references to different theories and research
findings in neuroscience are life changing too ;-) but really, at the bottom of
it all, I think that the real power is in being boundaried, consistent,
self-aware and acting with true beneficence.

Regulation - no perfect
solution

So we boil down to the question; what
would I do if I had the power to regulate? The short answer is, I'm not 100% sure. I have a few questionmarks around the PSA
and I struggle with the fact that the NCS has a register with the conflict of interest in having their Chair as the person who founded Chrysalis,
who set up the NCS to oversee them. I am rankled that there are therapists who have
done a course with no supervised placements who can call themselves
"accredited therapists" (via the NCS system) versus the training I had which according to the
AR's puts me in exactly the same category as people with a lot less experience. I have anecdotally noticed a sense of
entitlement with a few Chrysalis students from comments online, possibly
contributed to by the aggressive marketing (eg stating that the diploma
qualification leads to earning at least £45 an hour; a claim which formed the
basis of an upheld complaint with the ASA). The origins of
the NCS being set up by the management of Chrysalis to regulate their own
training and students is something I have heard others struggle with too. I
think they'd do well to sever the connections and this will be in the interest
of their members. I also feel bad for students of Chrysalis who thought that
they could become BACP members once qualified but apparently the BACP rules
changed part way through the training for some (I don't know this for a fact).
I guess this leads to the "Empire Building" accusations but I totally
get why the BACP insist that supervised placements are an integral part of
training.

I get frustrated by the somewhat infantile name calling against the BACP by therapists who have chosen not to be members of the BACP and those perhaps whose credentials don't match up to the BACP requirements so are unable to join the BACP Accredited Register. I see discussions on LinkedIn between professionals colluding with each other, very much in child ego state with deeply unconstructive criticism; very childish, unfounded rants about the BACP. I'm sure the BACP are not for everyone and, like us all, have their flaws but can't we be reasonable? What are we, as professionals, modelling?

I am ranting, and unashamedly so and hopefully with reason and consideration to facts. I am
also aware that I absolutely have my own agenda in this and actually, in the
scheme of things, it's quite petty. Given that the opposition to the HCPC route
was so vehement, the best way forward is probably via the PSA AR's. And
although I struggle with the fact that the NCS can be on par with BACP and UKCP when I believe I see a
clear difference (riddled with my own agenda), the point is that they do have a complaints procedure and
they are accountable to the PSA. Given that the Chair of the PSA told me he was
on good terms with the PSA CEO Harry Cayton I do have some skepticism, but
I consider it a healthy dose. The CEO of the NCS I found to be very
professional and I really enjoyed the conversation I had with her last year. I
was told that their code of conduct was co-written with the director of the
Clinic for Boundaries Studies and I really respect that.

Idealism vs realism

I flit between the two. I am
Myers-Briggs INFJ type. Integrity, authenticity and by
default self-awareness are concepts I strive to prioritise in all my decision
making. In an ideal world we wouldn't need regulation. But we do.
Realistically, the PSA ARs are the best way forward, in my opinion, based upon
what I understand presently.

In Summary

This is work in progress. As I learn
more I will adapt. I have taken a back seat on the campaign for regulation of
late but intend to pick it up again post election. I have a lot of work ahead of me. As far as I
know, everybody else in these shoes has given up. That might happen to me but
it hasn't happened yet. If regulation came into force and I ended up losing my
work because I am not deemed fit to practice then I would retrain. If I was
found to be incompetent as a practitioner then I would change jobs. Regulation
trumps my career. So I have no fear.

So I'm being honest and throwing it out there. There are lots of conversations being had in the therapy world between professionals about regulation and this is just one of them. What I would like to add is that through being public with my own experience I have become increasingly aware of extreme abuses of power in therapy, as I have been approached by a number of victims. These stories are often not heard by the people commenting on regulation. In fact, due to the hurdles intrinsic in the complaints processes, the industry's collusion with abuse (by failing to truly acknowledge the existence of it) and the fact that the nature of abuse usually invokes deepest shame in the victim, these people's stories will never see the light of day.More posts on regulation: